DownTheAvenue wrote:
lanerd wrote:
It's really simple logic.
and/or loos of insurance coverage.
It is a matter of physics, not logic.
The insurance carrier cannot deny coverage unless it specifically states in the policy vehicles without supplemental braking are not covered, if the driver of the vehicle is breaking any law there is no coverage, or words to that effect. The insurance carrier cannot just deny coverage because a vehicle could not stop quick enough. That doesn't make sense.
You have taken my statement completely out of context. The "logic" statement referred to the following:
It's really simple logic. If both vehicles have brakes, the emergency stopping distance will be shorter "than" if only one has brakes.
Ron